Bodhidharma is always saying this, e.g.; "I only talk about seeing your nature", "you must see your nature", "if you don't see your nature...", "once you see your nature...", etc..

However, food can't cook itself, the eye can't see itself, the knife can't cut itself, the camera can't take a picture of itself..... and the mind can't know itself.

Everything the mind knows is the object of its cognition, not the mind itself.

So is it correct to say to "see your nature" means to realize that "all things appearing in the three realms come from mind", to see that is what is meant by to "see your mind", i.e. to see (to realize) the workings of your mind?

It that sense it is extrapolating a mind capable of delusion from the delusion, since this "mind" itself has no appearance and cannot actually be "seen". "It's like space, it has a name but no form". But, as Bodhidharma also says;

So to "see your real Buddha/mind/nature" is to simply be aware of all the objects of cognition, but don't follow them because they are false. Just know that they come from mind.

"Buddha is Sanskrit for what you call aware, miraculously aware. Responding, arching your brows blinking your eyes, moving your hands and feet, its all your miraculously aware nature. And this nature is the mind. And the mind is the Buddha. And the Buddha is the path. And the path is Zen. But the word Zen is one that remains a puzzle to both mortals and sages. Seeing your nature is Zen. Unless you see your nature, it's not Zen."

-------

I am mostly familiar with the Chinese Weishi school and want to clear up the wordings of Chan/Zen schools.

In Weishi there is "唯能无所"... I don't know how to translate it.. "only that which is able to produce (mind), yet no production (delusion)". But "眼不能自见，心不能自识", "the eye can't see itself, and the mind can't know itself".

While in Chan/Zen there is "见性成佛", "See the nature, become Buddha" which sounds like a subject-object construct. Unless the correct understanding is as in Weishi, and "seeing your nature" means understanding "唯能无所", "三界唯心". "Three realms, only mind".

To experience your emptiness which is what sentient beings only have the capacity to do.

Dexing wrote:However, food can't cook itself, the eye can't see itself, the knife can't cut itself, the camera can't take a picture of itself..... and the mind can't know itself.

Everything the mind knows is the object of its cognition, not the mind itself.

"Food" and its being cooked is the effect of humans activity. The knife and its cutting is the effect of humans activity. The camera and its taking pictures is the effect of humans activity.Here the difference between sentient beings and their faculties (e.g. "mind") and inanimate phenomena becomes important.

It is not certain that every object (qua object known) the mind "knows" necessarily has to be different from "mind" itself. Also it is not advisable to conceptually separate "mind" and the "knowing" because this implies that there would be an entity "mind" that does the "knowing". But the "knowing [of something in a specific way of knowing]" is what is usually called "mind". If we interprete "knowing" meaning inference then the object inferred may be different from the object referred to simply because inference is indirect and sort of "synthetic" knowledge.But if we interprete "knowing" meaning direct perception then the object thus known may be the object referred to itself. And if we assume - hypothetically - that "mind" means "self-conscious appearance in the context of sentient beings" then "mind" may know itself through direct perception. In the same way an "apple" appears so "mind" may appear [to itself].But this would not be one's own nature but just direct appearance of "mind".

Dexing wrote:So is it correct to say to "see your nature" means to realize that "all things appearing in the three realms come from mind", to see that is what is meant by to "see your mind", i.e. to see (to realize) the workings of your mind?

I do not think that it is valid to say "all things come from mind" simply because the process of manifestation (or the "arena of appearance") itself is called "mind" if "come from" is meant to refer to a cause/origin. Whether "external" or "internal" causes or both are assumed analytically that does not make any difference because the process of manifestation we can consider always is the same and to posit "external" and/or "internal" turns out to be speculation. Conventionally however it does make a difference because some assumptions are compliant with common sense convention or the conventional view of the tradition one follows or one's own non-analytical intuition and other assumptions are not so compliant.

To experience your emptiness which is what sentient beings only have the capacity to do.

Hi,

My question is not so much about what it means, but why it's said "to see" your nature. The Chinese term also says jianxing (见性), jian means "to see".

I just wonder why they always use the term "to see".

In the Chinese Weishi (yogachara) school it's often mind/consciousness knowing the objects it creates. But of course this is nondual, because those objects are illusory subjective realities not separate from the mind. But the consciousness can't turn around and directly know itself. It can only know that which it is conscious of, e.g. sights, sounds, smells, tastes, tangibles, and ideas.

This is Weishi philosophy. "The eye can't see itself, and the mind can't know itself".

Here the difference between sentient beings and their faculties (e.g. "mind") and inanimate phenomena becomes important.

"Sentient being" itself is also an illusory object of thought-consciousness, based on eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, etc.. But again, in Weishi philosophy, these objects of consciousness are not the consciousness itself, but its delusion.

It is not certain that every object (qua object known) the mind "knows" necessarily has to be different from "mind" itself. Also it is not advisable to conceptually separate "mind" and the "knowing" because this implies that there would be an entity "mind" that does the "knowing".

The theory is basically, because while the objects the mind knows are illusory creations of the mind, "they" were in fact never produced or extinguished. So it is said "三界唯心" (Three Realms Only Mind).

I do not think that it is valid to say "all things come from mind" simply because the process of manifestation (or the "arena of appearance") itself is called "mind" if "come from" is meant to refer to a cause/origin.

The Mahayana phrase is "一切唯心造" (Everything is created by mind alone), while in emptiness there is no production or extinction.

In Weishi there are the three natures, one of which being "依他起性" (dependent nature), which is said to be the "true dependent origination". Why? Because in reality "三界唯心" (Three Realms Only Mind).

But although knowing is the minds function, it can't turn around and know itself. It only knows the objects it "creates".

Anyway, what I'm interested in is simply why they use the term "to see", while it is said that the objects of consciousness — while not separate from the mind — are not the mind itself. The mind has no discernible appearance to be seen. But the appearance of emptiness — even not having an appearance — is still called an appearance.

So in my understanding, basically "to see your nature" means "to see" the appearance of emptiness, even not having any such appearance to be seen.

Perhaps it is another "meditating on walls" thing, where many people have their own interpretation, but no one knows what he really meant.

But he says;

"Buddha is Sanskrit for what you call aware, miraculously aware. Responding, arching your brows blinking your eyes, moving your hands and feet, its all your miraculously aware nature. And this nature is the mind. And the mind is the Buddha. And the Buddha is the path. And the path is Zen. But the word Zen is one that remains a puzzle to both mortals and sages. Seeing your nature is Zen. Unless you see your nature, it's not Zen."

So seeing the movement of your hands and feet, for example, is seeing your nature.

But again, in Weishi theory at least, hands and feet and moving are objects of eye-consciousness, not consciousness itself.

If they are nondual, then it is saying that moving hands and feet are the appearance of your nature. And while you see it, you in reality are only seeing emptiness, the appearance of emptiness.

Is this what it means "to see" your nature? Just experience life. So you could smell your nature, hear your nature, etc. in whatever way it "appears".

I'm not sure if there is a conflict here. Because in Weishi these appearances are not the mind itself, although their nature is basically mind, since "三界唯心" (Three Realms Only Mind).

I guess Bodhidharma's "see your nature" was like Socrates who always said; "Know thyself, know thyself", knowing that you can't "know yourself". You also can't "see your nature". But it provides direction.

Dexing wrote:...I am mostly familiar with the Chinese Weishi school and want to clear up the wordings of Chan/Zen schools.

In Weishi there is "唯能无所"... I don't know how to translate it.. "only that which is able to produce (mind), yet no production (delusion)". But "眼不能自见，心不能自识", "the eye can't see itself, and the mind can't know itself".

While in Chan/Zen there is "见性成佛", "See the nature, become Buddha" which sounds like a subject-object construct. Unless the correct understanding is as in Weishi, and "seeing your nature" means understanding "唯能无所", "三界唯心". "Three realms, only mind".

For understanding the 能 and 所, it really helps to have a bit of Sanskrit knowledge. These are two characters appended to Chinese verbs, to simulate two types of Skt grammar.

1. 能 for the "-r" agent ending. It works like English "-er" or "-or" suffix. eg. "kr" is a verb "act" (eg. karma = action), the term "katr" is a noun "act-or" or "do-er". etc. 2. 所 for the "-ta" past participle ending. It works like English "-ed" suffix. eg. "kr" is a verb "act", and "kr-ta" is a noun "acted" or "done", etc.

唯能無所 means "only an agent, nothing enacted". eg. there is a seer (see-er) but nothing seen (see-ed); there is an actor (act-or) but nothing enacted (act-ed). Or, there is subject, but not object.

(Another form of this is not just two-fold, but threefold. It is based on the basic predicate form: subject verb object. eg. actor enacts the enacted; seer sees the seen. This is the form found in Prajnaparamita literature, and also in Nagarjuna's verses.)

However, this is only the first stage of so-called "mere cognition" practice. The next step is where one then knows: If there is no object, then there can be no subject, as subject depends on object (basic premise of pre-cognition-only mind theory). Thus, one enters the state of neither subject nor object. It does NOT mean that "subject and object are one" as many claim, but that there is neither.

This mind-only form can be seen in some of Linji's teachings, he was formerly a specialist in these teachings before he went to Huang Po.

However, and this is important, there are a lot of possible meanings for the use of "nature" in Bodhidharma's little phrases. I would also say that taking a direct "mind only" system would probably be inaccurate, for a number of reasons. Rather, a "tathagatagarbha" approach may be better. These are not the only systems one could use, however.

It makes his statements deliciously ambiguous, such that there is a statement, but one can explain it in a number of ways, depending on one's favorite teaching. And there is not enough evidence or material to convincingly disagree either way! haha!

when you see all forms, all arising, this is merely seeing your face, as it is now, in a mirror. the buddha is form, being form the buddha is also emptiness, since emptiness is form. though i think you find in the diamond sutras emphasis on basic emptiness that what is seen with the eye is not buddha, personally i disagree. i see all things as the buddha. the buddha nature is emptiness, therefore the buddha nature is form. every form of life and inanimate object expounds the dharma perfectly. whether crooked or straight... it is all "_________". so.

to see your nature in the clearest way is fundamentally to see emptiness. seeing emptiness does not necessarily make one a buddha. i have seen my face in emptiness and in form, but i am not a buddha. i dont know what i am. there is no I to know.

best wishes, White Lotus. xxx

in any matters of importance. dont rely on me. i may not know what i am talking about. take what i say as mere speculation. i am not ordained. nor do i have a formal training. i do believe though that if i am wrong on any point. there are those on this site who i hope will quickly point out my mistakes.

White Lotus wrote:when you see all forms, all arising, this is merely seeing your face, as it is now, in a mirror.

C'mon. Why replacing one metaphor by another?"Seeing" obviously is unclear in meaning and "face" is unclear too.How can seeing all forms be equated with seeing one's face? The face is one of many forms but not "all forms".

White Lotus wrote:the buddha is form,

If there is no person before you that is called "Buddha" then it is an idea. Why is an idea called "form"?

White Lotus wrote:being form the buddha is also emptiness, since emptiness is form. though i think you find in the diamond sutras emphasis on basic emptiness that what is seen with the eye is not buddha, personally i disagree. i see all things as the buddha.

Everybody is free to generate her/his own private speech.

White Lotus wrote:the buddha nature is emptiness, therefore the buddha nature is form. every form of life and inanimate object expounds the dharma perfectly. whether crooked or straight... it is all "_________". so.

If every form expounds the dharma why then is there the cause of suffering? Because dharma and suffering are inextricably intermingled?

White Lotus wrote:to see your nature in the clearest way is fundamentally to see emptiness. seeing emptiness does not necessarily make one a buddha. i have seen my face in emptiness and in form, but i am not a buddha. i dont know what i am. there is no I to know.

It is said that "seeing" either occurs in the context of entry of the path of seeing or of the first bhumi.

dear Tmingyur... i love your analysis, but do not have time to answer your questions in any detail, so i have read your article and now ask you a question about a point of uncertainty in my mind.

"why replace one metaphor with another?" am i right in thinking that you shun metaphor because it evades analysis? does it evade analysis? perhaps metaphor could be used to stimulate analysis in the artistic mind, but close it down in the practical analytical mind. hope im not getting away from the point of buddha nature.

ultimately the buddha nature is emptiness of emptiness, emptiness of all things. so. this emptiness is the potential and the actuality of all things. so. i may be wrong but that is how i see it. so.

once again Tmingyur, i must deeply apologise for not having the time nor dedication to address each of your analytical points directly, but hope that by addressing the point of uncertainty in my mind, to learn something helpful.

love White Lotus. xxx

in any matters of importance. dont rely on me. i may not know what i am talking about. take what i say as mere speculation. i am not ordained. nor do i have a formal training. i do believe though that if i am wrong on any point. there are those on this site who i hope will quickly point out my mistakes.

yes, seeing and face are unclear, but keeping it simple, what does a face look like in a mirror. the projection of reality is a projection of consciousness or mind, mind is the non arising of the non arisen. emptiness. so.

every 'thing' is a non arising, including thoughts and ideas. there is no difference between a theory of relativity and makeing a cup of tea, both are non arisings of no emptiness. since emptiness is not. so.

"everybody is free to generate his or her free speech." cool, if only it were like this everywhere. having said that i disagree, i can also agree that the disagreement was only a playing with words. the no dance of forms/arisings/phenomena.

in some schools 'dharma' is a synonym for reality. but even the teaching is suffering, that one must endure. all 'is' is suffering. clear away the trash and you have an empty house, then knock down the walls, demolish the foundations. nothing is left... that is good.

if one has no eyes, how can one see? though there may be the appearance of seeing and the sensitivity of eyes and their sight. these are actually non-appearances.

love, White Lotus. xxx

please remember Tmingyur, the dharma that plays with words is not the true dharma. its what the words point towards that matters. no words contain it, unless it is directly tasted by the mind. i am an artist and so my means of communication may be less than rational at times, at least it may appear not to be rational, but infact artists are rational beasts, they just like symbol and metaphor, not direct analysis, which can seem to some as dry, but i like it.

in any matters of importance. dont rely on me. i may not know what i am talking about. take what i say as mere speculation. i am not ordained. nor do i have a formal training. i do believe though that if i am wrong on any point. there are those on this site who i hope will quickly point out my mistakes.

White Lotus wrote:"why replace one metaphor with another?" am i right in thinking that you shun metaphor because it evades analysis?

If there is asking about the meaning of a metaphor to answer with another metaphor IMO does not make sense. But who likes it likes it.

White Lotus wrote:does it evade analysis? perhaps metaphor could be used to stimulate analysis in the artistic mind, but close it down in the practical analytical mind.

Of course you may aim at a sort of koan effect. But I am not into koans either.

White Lotus wrote:once again Tmingyur, i must deeply apologise for not having the time nor dedication to address each of your analytical points directly, but hope that by addressing the point of uncertainty in my mind, to learn something helpful.

love White Lotus. xxx

No problem at all. If you have time and want to post then fine and if not there is absolutely no problem. There is not even the need to reply at all. Really.

White Lotus wrote:please remember Tmingyur, the dharma that plays with words is not the true dharma.

Actually "teaching the dharma" is "playing with words". It is probing what the right "key" is. What is the lock?

White Lotus wrote:its what the words point towards that matters. no words contain it, unless it is directly tasted by the mind.

Since not all words have the capacity to "unlock" it boils down to the fact that it is "the words" that matters. Thus everything is "contained" in them.

Another point about the English language and translations you are using here, I shall put them in bold:

Dexing wrote:What does it mean to "see your nature"?

Bodhidharma is always saying this, e.g.; "I only talk about seeing your nature", "you must see your nature", "if you don't see your nature...", "once you see your nature...", etc..

...

So is it correct to say to "see your nature" means to realize that "all things appearing in the three realms come from mind", to see that is what is meant by to "see your mind", i.e. to see (to realize) the workings of your mind?

So to "see your real Buddha/mind/nature" is to simply be aware of all the objects of cognition, but don't follow them because they are false. Just know that they come from mind.

"Buddha is Sanskrit for what you call aware, miraculously aware. Responding, arching your brows blinking your eyes, moving your hands and feet, its all your miraculously aware nature. And this nature is the mind. And the mind is the Buddha. And the Buddha is the path. And the path is Zen. But the word Zen is one that remains a puzzle to both mortals and sages. Seeing your nature is Zen. Unless you see your nature, it's not Zen."

-------

...

So what does it mean "to see" your nature?

Okay, as you see, I've highlighted the word "your" (and also "you"). I am not doing this for the pedantic idea of "there is no I or You in Buddhism", that would be trivial. I am doing this for two reasons:

1. For "you", most classic Chinese does not use pronouns (much). So, things tend to be written more like this: "If not see the nature", etc. It does not specify "you", or "me" or "anyone". I tend to read these as "one". eg. "If one does not see the nature". This can make some difference, for example, feel the difference between these two statements: "You suffer because you are deluded". "A person suffers because they are deluded". The first can hit like a personal insult, the second does not.

2. The most common word which you have translated as "your nature" above, is either 性 or 自性. The first is just "nature", the second is a bit more tricky. It is 自nature. What is the 自 part then? Well, most modern people who have only a basic understanding of Dharma will read it like 自己, ie. "yourself". However, this overlooks the common usage of this term in classic Chinese Buddhism. It is the most common translation for Skt "svabhAva", the "sva-" is 自 and the "bhAva" is 性. However, the term "sva-" is a reflexive term, not necessarily referring to "my-self" or "your-self", etc. It refers to the "self-nature" of a given dharma, or the "specific nature" (as opposed to the general nature 共性) of a dharma. However, for many Mahayana teachings, the word refers to such notions as emptiness, which is the essential nature of all dharmas.

(Beware: There is one crappy translation of the Platform Sutra around that translates this term as "essence of mind", which is not just incorrect translation, but is quite misleading.)

Thus, 自性 refers not to "your nature" or "my nature", which is restricted to the person in question, but to "the essential nature" of all phenomena. Or, 性 refers to the "nature" of phenomena.

So, then, what is the (essential) nature of phenomena? It is their emptiness, their dependent origination and cessation.

For most schools, the first stage of awakening is the "path of vision", which is vision of the four noble truths which is the same as vision of the law of dependent origination: seeing that whatever is subject to arising is also subject to cessation. This vision makes one enter the holy path, but is not full awakening yet. For the Mahayana, it is the patience of the non-arising of dharmas, because one sees that there are no intrinsic dharmas that could arise or cease.

While I'm posting: Dexing originally posted this question in the Ch'an Forum. And he's asking questions about the teaching of Bodhidharma and Chinese Weishi / Faxiang. Let's try to keep it within that scope, huh?

Thanks so much for taking the time! I know Chinese but I can't follow with the Sanskrit. That obviously helps.

On the topic of 能所 in Weishi philosophy,

I get that first you see there is only 能 (subject) and no 所 (object), logically. But then secondly, since there is no 所 how can there be 能? There is in fact neither.

But when asked if it is nihilistic the answer is often no, because while nothing in a dream is real, logically since there is delusion, the mind capable of dreaming is real. 衣他起性 (dependent nature) or 三界唯心 (three realms only mind).

But is that not 唯能无所 once again?

I think this ties back into my original question concerning the Chan tradition, but I also have one other Weishi question if you don't mind taking a look at it...

The difference is that in the first case, it is posited that there is mind (in the sense of the manas faculty, the sixth sense organ) and objects; in the second case, it it posited that in fact both that mind and objects are arisings from the alaya-vijnana. The alaya has both "sense / subject aspect" and "object aspect", but both are arisings from alaya. Cognition that this is alaya is correct cognition, whereas the original sub / obj distinction is in correct.

The first stages are the fully conceptualized nature (遍計所執 parikalpita) on what is really the alaya as basis (依他起 paratantra), and the last stage is knowing the alaya for what it really is, without the conceptualization (圓成實 parinispanna). The last stage is known as "real", so it cannot be said to be nihilism. It is empty too, but empty in the sense of the absence of full conceptualization.

So, careful to make the distinction between what is actually referred to by the term "mind" in each stage or point of practice.

dear Tmingyur, we are wandering from the point under discussion and so i am starting a new thread Tmingyur. i will be able to taste your critical analysis in that thread should you choose to post on it... would be much appreciated. will try to limit the metaphor. chuckling at your use of lock and key.

flakey. xxx

in any matters of importance. dont rely on me. i may not know what i am talking about. take what i say as mere speculation. i am not ordained. nor do i have a formal training. i do believe though that if i am wrong on any point. there are those on this site who i hope will quickly point out my mistakes.

Huifeng wrote:The difference is that in the first case, it is posited that there is mind (in the sense of the manas faculty, the sixth sense organ) and objects; in the second case, it it posited that in fact both that mind and objects are arisings from the alaya-vijnana. The alaya has both "sense / subject aspect" and "object aspect", but both are arisings from alaya. Cognition that this is alaya is correct cognition, whereas the original sub / obj distinction is in correct.

The first stages are the fully conceptualized nature (遍計所執 parikalpita) on what is really the alaya as basis (依他起 paratantra), and the last stage is knowing the alaya for what it really is, without the conceptualization (圓成實 parinispanna). The last stage is known as "real", so it cannot be said to be nihilism. It is empty too, but empty in the sense of the absence of full conceptualization.

So, careful to make the distinction between what is actually referred to by the term "mind" in each stage or point of practice.